Author: adler

Josh Earnest, WH press secretary under Obama – Screencap of Twitter/X video.
In 2016, before Trump was president, Obama was using ICE to deport some illegal immigrants and families were separated. Yet the media didn’t act like it was the end of the world.
There were no protests. No one was being accused of being a Nazi or a fascist. The left didn’t care at all and neither did the media.
In the clip below, one journalist calmly asks about it and Obama’s press secretary Josh Earnest is able to answer without interruption.
Even the reporting from the Washington Post was more measured:
Asked about the removal operations, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that the administration has “prioritized the cases of recent arrivals, individuals who recently crossed the border without proper documentation. That is the nature of the operations carried out in the last several days.”
Earnest said the efforts are “consistent with the priorities the president himself talked about, deporting felons not families, with a focus on individuals who only recently crossed the border.”
He added that those targeted for removal have gone through due process legal proceedings and said the effort will help discourage Central American families that sending their children on a dangerous journey to try to enter the United States illegally.
“People should take from this the understanding that the administration is quite serious when it comes to enforcing immigration laws.”
Because of the sensitivity of taking children into custody and deporting them and their families, authorities took precautions during the raids, Johnson’s statement said, using female agents when possible to apprehend families and having medical personnel on hand.
Watch this video:

2016. Obama’s Press Secretary is asked about reports that during immigration raids, ICE agents were storming into homes, going room to room looking for illegals, and making children tremble with fear.
I thought only fascist Presidents do that sort of thing.
Why was the press… pic.twitter.com/oQ1UgeJiJg
— MAZE (@mazemoore) January 13, 2026

On the same note, here’s Obama himself in 2013 talking about deporting people.
From Townhall:
“As time goes on, a thousand deportations on average a day. People are wondering…won’t you at least consider unilaterally freezing deportations for the parents of deferred action kids?” reporter Jose Diaz-Balart asked.
“Here’s the problem that I have, Jose, and I’ve said this consistently,” Obama replied, “my job in the Executive Branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said, ‘Here’s the law when it comes to those who are undocumented,’ and they allocate a whole bunch of money for enforcement.”
Watch:

2013. Obama is asked if he would at least stop deportations of parents of children brought here illegally.
In other words, would he stop family separations and stop deportations of people who have “done nothing wrong.”
Obama: “That is not an option.”pic.twitter.com/GaEXsWgn7u
— MAZE (@mazemoore) January 11, 2026

No one on the left called Obama a Nazi or a fascist. They didn’t even really seem to care. Which just goes to show that this is all about the left being out of power. They don’t care about these people at all. They just can’t stand Trump having the power that they once had.
The post FLASHBACK: Watch How Calmly the Media Talked About ICE Raids and Family Separation Under Obama (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Democrats are being told not to say ‘abolish ICE’ because it will hurt their chances in the midterms. Of course, they want to say it and they believe it, they even want to do it, but it’s a losing political message and they know it.
It is basically ‘defund the police’ all over again, and even though they meant that one too, they know that it damaged them politically.
Saying ‘abolish ICE’ simply reinforces the idea that Democrats care more about illegal aliens than they do about American citizens, a concept that they have done nothing to dispel in recent months.
UnHerd reports:
‘Abolish ICE’ is a losing issue for Democrats
As the Trump administration has ramped up immigration enforcement across the country, many Americans, especially Democrats, have grown outraged by the perception that ICE is acting with impunity. But as emotions run high, it’s crucial that the party does not let the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction. Troublingly, some are starting to embrace a familiar slogan: “abolish ICE.”
One Democratic polling analyst last week highlighted this trend in a piece provocatively titled: “Support for abolishing ICE hits a new high.” A tracking poll shows that support for the idea has grown significantly since early 2025, reaching an eight-year high of 42%. While independents contributed to the shift, the majority of the change came from Democrats. Support among them has surged from 40% on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration to 69% today…
Still, it’s likely that this slogan will gain further traction if reports of ICE brutality continue. Republicans, in turn, are poised to seize on it by portraying Democrats as extremists in the run-up to this year’s midterm elections. Although Democrats are well positioned for victory in November, the spread of this sentiment within the party — even if confined to its base — could introduce an unnecessary risk to their efforts to both regain control and impose a substantive check on the president.
Isn’t it amazing that Democrats have to hide their true intentions from the American people in order to appeal to voters?

NBC NEWS, translated: “Democrats warned to stop saying stuff they believe out loud before the midterms.” pic.twitter.com/43n5wa4Ewr
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) January 13, 2026

Of course, some Democrats just can’t help themselves.

ICE cannot be reformed. It must be abolished. pic.twitter.com/ouRBFD0BtD
— Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) January 11, 2026

All these Democrats are worried about is losing their illegal alien voters. That’s it.
The post Democrats Are Being Warned Not to Say ‘Abolish ICE’ Because it’s a Losing Political Message appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 marked a victory for the pro-life movement, but since that decision, there has been a rise in abortion pills used to murder children.
One instance came from Kentucky in December as 35-year-old Melinda Spencer was arrested, being charged with first-degree fetal homicide, abuse of a corpse, and tampering with physical evidence.
She allegedly took abortion pills on Dec. 26, the abortion occurred the next day, and she reported to a healthcare clinic on Dec. 31 that she buried her dead child in a shallow grave.
WDKY-TV reported that when she met with police, she explained that she buried the remains at her home, and after obtaining a search warrant, they found a white grocery bag which contained a light bulb box covered in wrapping paper.
She explained that she became pregnant by a man outside of her relationship and wanted to get rid of the evidence. A syringe was also found in Spencer’s coat pocket, which she told authorities was for using methamphetamine.
After the 2022 decision, Kentucky has stern restrictions on abortions at clinics and the use of abortion pills.
Though Spencer still faces charges for abuse of a corpse and tampering with physical evidence, the charge for fetal homicide was dropped — because pro-life laws in Kentucky have a loophole exempting women from criminal prosecution for abortion.
Although the pro-life movement has largely sympathized with mothers in a pro-abortion culture, Spencer allegedly killed a child and then buried the corpse in her backyard.
She apparently wanted to hide infidelity, and decided her child needed to die to make it so.

Kentucky State Police say 35-year-old Melinda Spencer of Campton is charged with first-degree fetal homicide, abuse of a corpse, and tampering with physical evidence. More tonight at 5:30 and 7 on @LEX18News pic.twitter.com/Rwkw5tuzB2
— Annie Brown (@AnnieBrownNews) January 2, 2026

If expectant mothers see this news and it gives their children a chance at life, Kentucky’s laws are working.
But the loopholes letting some women get away with murder need to be closed.
Adoption is an option, but we also need to reintroduce the church as the center of caring for children when families are not available.
Aside from the abortion aspect of the story, women who are thinking about being unfaithful should also take heed.
Childbearing should not be taken lightly; these are human beings, not an inconvenience to be thrown away.
Unfortunately, in the Roe era, according to National Right to Life, 64 million children have been treated like this.
It’s a heartbreaking figure and almost unfathomable. We are not talking about a war or a revolution, but sweet innocent babies.
It is almost hard to grasp that degree of evil.
We should absolutely applaud President Donald Trump and the Supreme Court.
Because of his appointments and their work, Roe is no longer authorizing murder across the country.
But there is still a lot of work to be done, even in conservative states.
Above all, we must never forget this evil still exists, and we must always keep these children in our prayers, begging our Lord Jesus Christ to allowing us to bring a complete end to abortion.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
The post Woman Jailed After Gruesome Discovery Made in Light Bulb Box Buried in Back Yard appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

This is a Gateway Hispanic article.
The post United States Accuses Chinese Network of Laundering More Than $27 Million for Mexican Cartels appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices listened to arguments from attorneys on whether states can ban biological boys who identify as “transgender” from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams in public schools and colleges.
The two controversial cases the Supreme Court heard were: Little v. Hecox, from Idaho, where a law says sports teams must be based on biological sex at birth. West Virginia v. B.P.J. (or Becky Pepper-Jackson) — from West Virginia, where a similar law (“Save Women’s Sports Act”) bars transgender girls from female teams. The West Virginia case involves a 15-year-old high school student named Becky who has been on hormone therapy and wants to compete in track and field.
The cases were heard by a conservative majority court, with leftist Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and the far-left Biden-appointed Ketanji Jackson (the most low-IQ justice on the court) arguing in favor of stripping young girls and women of the opportunity to privacy in the locker rooms and from being able to achieve the top spots in their sport when competing against biological men.
Conservative lawyers argued that states have every right to BAN biological males from invading girls’ and women’s sports teams, while lawyers representing the Left appeared to be hell-bent on blurring the lines between sexes.
At one point during their pro-trans boys in girls’ locker/bathrooms argument, the ACLU lawyer Kathleen Hartnett was asked by Justice Samuel Alito to define a man, boy, woman, or girl. Hartnett appeared to panic as she realized Alito had brilliantly set a trap for her. Unable to answer the question, Hartnett appears to panic, telling him “they” don’t have a definition.
Screenshot
Here is the transcript from the exchange:
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito: Well, to pick up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of transgender status, let me just go back to—let me go to some basics. Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls?
ACLU Lawyer Kathleen Hartnett: Yes, Your Honor.
Justice Alito:  If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
Hartnett: Yes, Your Honor.
Justice Alito: And what is that definition? For equal protection purposes, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
Hartnett: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, the—we’d have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the Court.
And we don’t take issue with the—we’re not disputing the definition here. What we’re saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women’s teams and that there’s a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn’t make sense to do so according to the state’s own interest.
Justice Alito: Well, how can you—how can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?
Hartnett: I think here we just know—we basically know that the—that they’ve identified pursuant to their own statute, Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male, and she’s being excluded categorically from the women’s teams as the statute. So we’re taking the statute’s definitions as we find them and we don’t dispute them. We’re just trying to figure out do they create an equal protection problem.
Watch:

Absolutely incredible…
JUSTICE ALITO: To decide if there’s discrimination on the basis of sex, we need to define what sex is, right?
ACLU lawyer: Yes, your honor.
ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman, a boy or girl?
ACLU lawyer: We do not have a definition. pic.twitter.com/vHWjiK8HNW
— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) January 13, 2026

The truth is, Republican-led laws that are already protecting girls in several states across America provide girls and women with the assurances that all of the hard work they’ve dedicated to becoming the best at their sport will not be stolen from them by confused biological boys or men, or worse yet, boys pretending to be women. These “trans” athletes are stealing top spots in sports that they would only be considered “mediocre” at best if they were forced to compete with other males.
The post YIKES! ACLU Lawyer Can’t Answer When Justice Alito Asks Her to “Define man or woman, boy or girl” During Questioning on Transgenders In Sports Case [VIDEO] appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.